ok. i have to start somehow. fancy filler. let me keep the praises for the end. attempting a question as elusive as "what is art" — i see how hard it is to define. you give words to the feeling—that sweet place between "beauty and resonance".
& i can ask: what is "'pure' beauty"?
is beauty ever pure. doesn't the best art do something different? something "ugly"? doesn't it challenge something? fight something?
isn't beauty subjective? our interpretation of a creation outside ourselves? so is art just that nebulous confluence between something we find beautiful but in a way that talks to us personally?
& it is the way artistry makes her & me & you feel the same way, the community of appreciation we form, that makes art essential & all the more beautiful.
***
i saw asteroid city & it was a pain to watch; i struggled, came back to it many times, watching it piece-by-piece—the way i eat boiled porridge yam.
but i didn't feel it was horribly made. i love alté music & people look at me funny.
asteroid city is the kind of movie you know you'd only enjoy if you wear a different lens.
like you said: what's the point?
art is more than cut scenes. more than telling a story or any story.
it is that oeuvre + resonance.
i've always loved the way you express your thoughts.
I’ve always struggled with Wes Anderson’s movies on the first watch, but when it became clear to me that he prefers style over structure, it became a bit easier for me to enjoy them. His aesthetics have a certain charm to them — it’s beautiful.
About art, thank you for the kind words and taking the time out to share your thoughts. However, I can’t get rid of the feeling that I’m not done with this topic. I barely scratched the surface and there’s still so much more for me to write about it. i don’t think it’s over yet — I’m not done with the meaning of art…
Art is the baker's butter croissant, the pirate's beloved ship, the architect's prison design — just anything, I believe. In so far as you see/feel it and you think it to be so, then it is 🤔
I tried to describe what "Art" means some four months ago, I even started writing something about it. I also disagreed with Mr. Wilde's take on "All art is quite useless", although I do not know if he meant it literally.
Even though this isn't an exhaustive piece (kudos nonetheless) it made me realize that my initial definition of art being "Art is to the owner/maker whatever they choose it to be", was wrong. It was also this definition that made me disagree with Wilde, because if the Art(work) serves the purpose if it's creator, how then can it be useless?
But now, I might have taken on a new view: "Art is to you whatever you choose it to be"
Those who go beyond the surface do so at their own peril
Those who read the symbol do so at their own peril
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital
When the critics disagree, the artist is in accord with him
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.” - Oscar Wilde
This is the full text, and it was the introduction to his book “A Picture of Dorian Gray”, which ironically I’m currently rereading and it played a huge role in this my piece.
I think he can explain that better in his words. Shortly after he published the book, someone wrote to him asking what he meant by “All art is quite useless”, and Wilde wrote back:
16, TITE STREET,
CHELSEA. S.W.
My dear Sir
Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.
A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.
Truly yours,
Oscar Wilde
I, likewise, think his answer is one-dimensional, not entirely wrong, but definitely flawed.
ok. i have to start somehow. fancy filler. let me keep the praises for the end. attempting a question as elusive as "what is art" — i see how hard it is to define. you give words to the feeling—that sweet place between "beauty and resonance".
& i can ask: what is "'pure' beauty"?
is beauty ever pure. doesn't the best art do something different? something "ugly"? doesn't it challenge something? fight something?
isn't beauty subjective? our interpretation of a creation outside ourselves? so is art just that nebulous confluence between something we find beautiful but in a way that talks to us personally?
& it is the way artistry makes her & me & you feel the same way, the community of appreciation we form, that makes art essential & all the more beautiful.
***
i saw asteroid city & it was a pain to watch; i struggled, came back to it many times, watching it piece-by-piece—the way i eat boiled porridge yam.
but i didn't feel it was horribly made. i love alté music & people look at me funny.
asteroid city is the kind of movie you know you'd only enjoy if you wear a different lens.
like you said: what's the point?
art is more than cut scenes. more than telling a story or any story.
it is that oeuvre + resonance.
i've always loved the way you express your thoughts.
more cheers to the fikayo dispatch.
I’ve always struggled with Wes Anderson’s movies on the first watch, but when it became clear to me that he prefers style over structure, it became a bit easier for me to enjoy them. His aesthetics have a certain charm to them — it’s beautiful.
About art, thank you for the kind words and taking the time out to share your thoughts. However, I can’t get rid of the feeling that I’m not done with this topic. I barely scratched the surface and there’s still so much more for me to write about it. i don’t think it’s over yet — I’m not done with the meaning of art…
Far from over! - it's a long one, to universally describe what "art" is, but until your discovery, keep going at it eh✨
thank you for writing.
Art is the baker's butter croissant, the pirate's beloved ship, the architect's prison design — just anything, I believe. In so far as you see/feel it and you think it to be so, then it is 🤔
Thanks for the enlightenment also.
I’m just glad you can see the vision too
I tried to describe what "Art" means some four months ago, I even started writing something about it. I also disagreed with Mr. Wilde's take on "All art is quite useless", although I do not know if he meant it literally.
Even though this isn't an exhaustive piece (kudos nonetheless) it made me realize that my initial definition of art being "Art is to the owner/maker whatever they choose it to be", was wrong. It was also this definition that made me disagree with Wilde, because if the Art(work) serves the purpose if it's creator, how then can it be useless?
But now, I might have taken on a new view: "Art is to you whatever you choose it to be"
“All art is at once surface and symbol
Those who go beyond the surface do so at their own peril
Those who read the symbol do so at their own peril
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital
When the critics disagree, the artist is in accord with him
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.” - Oscar Wilde
This is the full text, and it was the introduction to his book “A Picture of Dorian Gray”, which ironically I’m currently rereading and it played a huge role in this my piece.
I think he can explain that better in his words. Shortly after he published the book, someone wrote to him asking what he meant by “All art is quite useless”, and Wilde wrote back:
16, TITE STREET,
CHELSEA. S.W.
My dear Sir
Art is useless because its aim is simply to create a mood. It is not meant to instruct, or to influence action in any way. It is superbly sterile, and the note of its pleasure is sterility. If the contemplation of a work of art is followed by activity of any kind, the work is either of a very second-rate order, or the spectator has failed to realise the complete artistic impression.
A work of art is useless as a flower is useless. A flower blossoms for its own joy. We gain a moment of joy by looking at it. That is all that is to be said about our relations to flowers. Of course man may sell the flower, and so make it useful to him, but this has nothing to do with the flower. It is not part of its essence. It is accidental. It is a misuse. All this is I fear very obscure. But the subject is a long one.
Truly yours,
Oscar Wilde
I, likewise, think his answer is one-dimensional, not entirely wrong, but definitely flawed.